Top Law Schools

Does anybody think Fordham is out of the question?

CAsun83 wrote:Does anybody think Fordham is out of the question?

What rank school do you go to now? Also, it's pretty stupid to really think it's an option when you are bottom 40% dude. Sorry to be the realistic voice here, but if you were bottom 40% before, it's highly unlikely that you will get all A+s this semester.

CAsun83 wrote:Does anybody think Fordham is out of the question?

What is your actual GPA right now and class rank?

ilovesf wrote:

CAsun83 wrote:Does anybody think Fordham is out of the question?

What rank school do you go to now? Also, it's pretty stupid to really think it's an option when you are bottom 40% dude. Sorry to be the realistic voice here, but if you were bottom 40% before, it's highly unlikely that you will get all A+s this semester.

You are missing the point. My rank is not reflective of my true academic abilities, which I displayed this past semester by getting straight A's. My school hasn't released rankings yet but based on my estimation it will be between top 30-50%

CAsun83 wrote:

ilovesf wrote:

CAsun83 wrote:Does anybody think Fordham is out of the question?

What rank school do you go to now? Also, it's pretty stupid to really think it's an option when you are bottom 40% dude. Sorry to be the realistic voice here, but if you were bottom 40% before, it's highly unlikely that you will get all A+s this semester.

You are missing the point. My rank is not reflective of my true academic abilities, which I displayed this past semester by getting straight A's. My school hasn't released rankings yet but based on my estimation it will be between top 30-50%

You already got your grades back? Even if that is true, which I seriously doubt, top 30-50% won't be high enough. 30% could possibly be high enough if it is a lateral transfer.

CAsun83 wrote:

ilovesf wrote:

CAsun83 wrote:Does anybody think Fordham is out of the question?

What rank school do you go to now? Also, it's pretty stupid to really think it's an option when you are bottom 40% dude. Sorry to be the realistic voice here, but if you were bottom 40% before, it's highly unlikely that you will get all A+s this semester.

You are missing the point. My rank is not reflective of my true academic abilities, which I displayed this past semester by getting straight A's. My school hasn't released rankings yet but based on my estimation it will be between top 30-50%

I would love to know what school you go to that was already administered and graded finals by May 3rd.

Mce252 wrote:

CAsun83 wrote:

ilovesf wrote:

CAsun83 wrote:Does anybody think Fordham is out of the question?

What rank school do you go to now? Also, it's pretty stupid to really think it's an option when you are bottom 40% dude. Sorry to be the realistic voice here, but if you were bottom 40% before, it's highly unlikely that you will get all A+s this semester.

You are missing the point. My rank is not reflective of my true academic abilities, which I displayed this past semester by getting straight A's. My school hasn't released rankings yet but based on my estimation it will be between top 30-50%

I would love to know what school you go to that was already administered and graded finals by May 3rd.

I bet you would

CAsun83 wrote: I bet you would

So did you just flat out lie or did you take finals in early April?

CAsun83 wrote:

Mce252 wrote:

CAsun83 wrote:

ilovesf wrote: What rank school do you go to now? Also, it's pretty stupid to really think it's an option when you are bottom 40% dude. Sorry to be the realistic voice here, but if you were bottom 40% before, it's highly unlikely that you will get all A+s this semester.

You are missing the point. My rank is not reflective of my true academic abilities, which I displayed this past semester by getting straight A's. My school hasn't released rankings yet but based on my estimation it will be between top 30-50%

I would love to know what school you go to that was already administered and graded finals by May 3rd.

I bet you would

here's the bottom line: transferring requires grades and little else. if you got straight A's second semester, congrats. but if you're not in at LEAST the top 30%, even after your great second semester, your chances at a meaningful transfer are slim to none.

that's the truth, regardless of whether you want to hear that or not.

Whatever, I was trying to be helpful on the off chance this wasn't a flame, but it's clearly a flame. Let's move on.

ilovesf wrote:Whatever, I was trying to be helpful on the off chance this wasn't a flame, but it's clearly a flame. Let's move on.

I'm never sure. Some people are just obstinate. You're probably right.

Lasers wrote:

CAsun83 wrote:

Mce252 wrote:

CAsun83 wrote: What rank school do you go to now? Also, it's pretty stupid to really think it's an option when you are bottom 40% dude. Sorry to be the realistic voice here, but if you were bottom 40% before, it's highly unlikely that you will get all A+s this semester.

here's the bottom line: transferring requires grades and little else. if you got straight A's second semester, congrats. but if you're not in at LEAST the top 30%, even after your great second semester, your chances at a meaningful transfer are slim to none.

that's the truth, regardless of whether you want to hear that or not.

Wow the truth huh? You should be my consigliere

CAsun83 wrote: Wow the truth huh? You should be my consigliere

sometimes the truth hurts, don't it?

CAsun83 wrote:

concurrent fork wrote: Top 40% is not even close to high enough for a meaningful transfer. And, as far as we can tell, URM status doesn't help you in transferring (there are a number of threads on this issue if you do a search).

You are missing the point. It's obvious that adcomms look for people who are academically distinguished. What I'm asking for is an unbiased, objective response as to whether demonstrating the academic worth to perform at the highest level by showing it in one semester, coupled with tremendous intangibles, whether it can offset a poor first semester? Remember, adcomms are looking for people who will represent their school well, which is why you always find people with exceptional numbers who complain about not getting into the schools they expected to get into based on the school's medians.

I answered your question. It doesn't matter how many soft factors you think you have. You can't transfer up when you're barely above median.

concurrent fork wrote:

CAsun83 wrote:

concurrent fork wrote: Top 40% is not even close to high enough for a meaningful transfer. And, as far as we can tell, URM status doesn't help you in transferring (there are a number of threads on this issue if you do a search).

You are missing the point. It's obvious that adcomms look for people who are academically distinguished. What I'm asking for is an unbiased, objective response as to whether demonstrating the academic worth to perform at the highest level by showing it in one semester, coupled with tremendous intangibles, whether it can offset a poor first semester? Remember, adcomms are looking for people who will represent their school well, which is why you always find people with exceptional numbers who complain about not getting into the schools they expected to get into based on the school's medians.

I answered your question. It doesn't matter how many soft factors you think you have. You can't transfer up when you're barely above median.

I will keep you posted.

CAsun83 wrote:

concurrent fork wrote:

CAsun83 wrote:

concurrent fork wrote: Top 40% is not even close to high enough for a meaningful transfer. And, as far as we can tell, URM status doesn't help you in transferring (there are a number of threads on this issue if you do a search).

You are missing the point. It's obvious that adcomms look for people who are academically distinguished. What I'm asking for is an unbiased, objective response as to whether demonstrating the academic worth to perform at the highest level by showing it in one semester, coupled with tremendous intangibles, whether it can offset a poor first semester? Remember, adcomms are looking for people who will represent their school well, which is why you always find people with exceptional numbers who complain about not getting into the schools they expected to get into based on the school's medians.

I answered your question. It doesn't matter how many soft factors you think you have. You can't transfer up when you're barely above median.

I will keep you posted.

Why? As a transfer, I'm telling you everything they said is correct and everything you think is a huge plus is, well, not...schools want consistency...drastic changes don't bode well for you cause they can't place you accurately.

CAsun83 wrote:

concurrent fork wrote:

CAsun83 wrote:

concurrent fork wrote: Top 40% is not even close to high enough for a meaningful transfer. And, as far as we can tell, URM status doesn't help you in transferring (there are a number of threads on this issue if you do a search).

You are missing the point. It's obvious that adcomms look for people who are academically distinguished. What I'm asking for is an unbiased, objective response as to whether demonstrating the academic worth to perform at the highest level by showing it in one semester, coupled with tremendous intangibles, whether it can offset a poor first semester? Remember, adcomms are looking for people who will represent their school well, which is why you always find people with exceptional numbers who complain about not getting into the schools they expected to get into based on the school's medians.

I answered your question. It doesn't matter how many soft factors you think you have. You can't transfer up when you're barely above median.

Why? As a transfer, I'm telling you everything they said is correct and everything you think is a huge plus is, well, not...schools want consistency...drastic changes don't bode well for you cause they can't place you accurately.

Consistency in what? The one criterion that you think is the end-all-be-all?

Not-so Experienced Apparent Know-it-all wrote:

Very Wise, Experienced Transfer Student wrote:

Why? As a transfer, I'm telling you everything they said is correct and everything you think is a huge plus is, well, not...schools want consistency...drastic changes don't bode well for you cause they can't place you accurately.

Consistency in what? The one criterion that you think is the end-all-be-all?

Just because you WANT me to be wrong, doesn't mean I am. But please, waste your money. To that effect, don't ask for advice on this forum unless you are willing to hear the truth.

Coolgrnmen wrote:

Not-so Experienced Apparent Know-it-all wrote:

Very Wise, Experienced Transfer Student wrote:

Why? As a transfer, I'm telling you everything they said is correct and everything you think is a huge plus is, well, not...schools want consistency...drastic changes don't bode well for you cause they can't place you accurately.

Consistency in what? The one criterion that you think is the end-all-be-all?

Just because you WANT me to be wrong, doesn't mean I am. But please, waste your money. To that effect, don't ask for advice on this forum unless you are willing to hear the truth.

You don't know the truth, no one does. I was asking for unbiased thoughts from people who I was hoping would be able to support their comments with something original.

But please, waste your time. To that effect, don't offer me any of your assistance.

Didn't we already cover that you probably blatantly lied about already receiving grades for finals? You haven't even mentioned what your GPA and specific actual rank are right now. Nor have I seen any compelling softs that are going to transform your transfer admissions results.

If you want unbiased informtion, give people an accurate picture of where you stand and you'll get what you want.

CAsun83 wrote:

Coolgrnmen wrote:

Not-so Experienced Apparent Know-it-all wrote:

Very Wise, Experienced Transfer Student wrote:

Why? As a transfer, I'm telling you everything they said is correct and everything you think is a huge plus is, well, not...schools want consistency...drastic changes don't bode well for you cause they can't place you accurately.

Consistency in what? The one criterion that you think is the end-all-be-all?

Just because you WANT me to be wrong, doesn't mean I am. But please, waste your money. To that effect, don't ask for advice on this forum unless you are willing to hear the truth.

You don't know the truth, no one does. I was asking for unbiased thoughts from people who I was hoping would be able to support their comments with something original.

But please, waste your time. To that effect, don't offer me any of your assistance.

TIL, "unbiased" means "something I want to hear, but not necessarily the things that I don't want to hear - like the truth." You are looking for hope - false hope. You want it? Ok...you stand a great chance because schools barely look at 1L first semester grades. In fact, most of the time, the admin office actually takes a black sharpie and crosses out the first semester grades so that when the admin committee gets it, they can only see the good stuff on your application. Also, the sheer number of clubs and activities that you partake in will point-for-point make up for your lacking GPA. Sometimes, 2 activities equal an entire point on the GPA calculation in the eyes of those people. You get infinite points if you claim to have seen a unicorn in your lifetime. It's like an auto-admit. This is because schools want to be represented by uber awesome people and they don't actually care how well you perform in law school...because, you know, employment numbers don't affect the rankings of schools or their reputation. They like to make hipster moves like hiring those kinds of people. Also, law firm hiring is very similar to the above.

Congratulations on your future admission to I Dream of Genie law school *drops mic*

I can't believe this guy is still going on with this idiotic rambling, looking for "unbiased" information (which must agree with what he wants to hear, or else it isn't unbiased), all the while failing to give an accurate picture of the softs he has that could somehow be so extenuating as to make schools entirely go against their typical transfer admission criteria.

Here is unbiased information: They look at your GPA, and anything else is a FAR second. Can anything else factor in slightly? Sure. But almost nothing will overcome an insufficient GPA. There is nothing biased about this, and its the same information numerous people have given you already

Coolgrnmen wrote:
TIL, "unbiased" means "something I want to hear, but not necessarily the things that I don't want to hear - like the truth." You are looking for hope - false hope. You want it? Ok...you stand a great chance because schools barely look at 1L first semester grades. In fact, most of the time, the admin office actually takes a black sharpie and crosses out the first semester grades so that when the admin committee gets it, they can only see the good stuff on your application. Also, the sheer number of clubs and activities that you partake in will point-for-point make up for your lacking GPA. Sometimes, 2 activities equal an entire point on the GPA calculation in the eyes of those people. You get infinite points if you claim to have seen a unicorn in your lifetime. It's like an auto-admit. This is because schools want to be represented by uber awesome people and they don't actually care how well you perform in law school...because, you know, employment numbers don't affect the rankings of schools or their reputation. They like to make hipster moves like hiring those kinds of people. Also, law firm hiring is very similar to the above.

Congratulations on your future admission to I Dream of Genie law school *drops mic*

THANK YOU!

Unbiased advice:

Law schools get enough transfer applicants where they can accept the students that got straight A's both semesters. These students' softs are good too.

I understand that you want these law schools to overlook your bad 1st semester, but this isn't undergrad admissions looking for an upward trend from your freshman year in high school when you get C's because the cute girl you had a locker next to rejected you. (and believe me, I had an upward trend in high school for exactly these types of reasons). Law schools want to know that you have a deep mastery of Contracts, Civ Pro, Criminal Law and LRW (eg 1st semester courses)...not just Con law, Property, Torts and Oral Advocacy (eg 2nd semester courses). They need to know you rock at all of these subjects.

It would be unfair for these law schools to accept you who clearly did TERRIBLY your first semester and deny the student at a similarly ranked law school who did NOT do terribly their first semester. Not only would it be unfair, but it would be taking a huge risk when they can reduce this risk with a better-performing applicant.

There are limited spots and people who did better than you who want them.

Regionality wrote:Unbiased advice:

Law schools get enough transfer applicants where they can accept the students that got straight A's both semesters. These students' softs are good too.

I understand that you want these law schools to overlook your bad 1st semester, but this isn't undergrad admissions looking for an upward trend from your freshman year in high school when you get C's because the cute girl you had a locker next to rejected you. (and believe me, I had an upward trend in high school for exactly these types of reasons).

There are limited spots and people who did better than you who want them.

I'm sorry about the girl rejecting you

Also, yeah, supply & demand is a bitch. IT JUST ISN'T FAIR!!!!